Criminal legal aid fees are out for consultation until 26 August, with advocates offered an average increase of 11 per cent. The Ministry of Justice’s separate consultation on extending judicial review reform beyond major infrastructure closes a day later. And the Court of Appeal has refused permission to appeal over Gatwick’s second runway, ending an eight-year process.
Criminal legal aid fees: AGFS consultation closes 26 August
The Ministry of Justice’s six-week consultation on reforming the Advocates’ Graduated Fee Scheme closes on 26 August 2026. It sets out how the £34m a year announced in December 2025 would be distributed across criminal advocate fees.
The structure is a general uplift with targeted additions on top. All AGFS fees rise by 6 per cent, and further increases on particular work take the average to around 11 per cent. Fees for appeals from the magistrates’ courts and in the Court of Appeal rise by a further 10 per cent, and advocate fees for plea and trial preparation hearings by a further 25 per cent.
The most structural proposal concerns guilty pleas. The basic fee for a guilty plea currently sits at 50 per cent of the basic fee for a trial or cracked trial, and would rise to 65 per cent, on the reasoning that this supports earlier and more thorough consideration of cases. Higher basic fees are also proposed for rape and serious sexual offences, serious violence, and burglary and robbery.
Two things sit outside the consultation. The investment in wasted and special preparation fees announced on 3 July is not being consulted on, and the separate uplift to solicitor fees, worth around £116m a year once in steady state, is a different exercise.
Read the consultation, and see our earlier note on what the AGFS proposals contain.
Which judicial reviews would the MoJ speed up?
Ones brought against major developments consented outside the nationally significant infrastructure regime. The consultation, Judicial review reforms: Beyond Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects, opened on 16 July and closes at 11:59pm on 27 August 2026.
It follows Lord Banner KC’s independent review and a 2024 call for evidence, which produced the NSIP measures in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 and the accompanying changes to the rules of court. The question now is whether the same approach should extend to decisions taken under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Transport and Works Act 1992.
The government has indicated the sorts of scheme it has in mind: onshore wind above 50MW, electricity network and grid-scale battery storage projects above 100MW, and significant housing developments, for which it offers schemes of more than 150 homes as an example. The reforms under consideration include limiting repeated unsuccessful attempts to bring a claim and imposing clearer court timetables.
Public law practitioners should read the timetable proposals closely. A shorter procedural clock for qualifying claims cuts in both directions, and the consultation itself acknowledges the need to avoid undue pressure on court resources while maintaining access to justice.
The consultation is on gov.uk.
Gatwick: permission to appeal refused on every ground
On 4 August 2026 the Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal against the Gatwick northern runway development consent order in Barclay & Anor v Secretary of State for Transport [2026] EWCA Civ 1040. Holgate LJ and Dove LJ held that every ground advanced by each appellant was unarguable, that neither appeal had a real prospect of success, and that there was no other compelling reason to hear either.
This was a refusal of permission rather than a dismissed appeal, because the two are often reported as the same thing. Below, Mould J had rejected the substantive judicial review claims in R (Barclay) v Secretary of State for Transport [2026] EWHC 1556 (Admin) on 23 June, after a rolled-up hearing over four days in January. The Secretary of State granted the order in September 2025.
The climate ground is the one with reach beyond this scheme. The court found no inherent contradiction in a decision that the project would have a moderate significant adverse climate effect while also concluding it would not materially affect the government’s ability to meet its carbon budgets.
A challenge to the wastewater requirement also failed, the court holding it reasonable to assume that the regulator, the water company and the airport operator would each act in accordance with their statutory responsibilities. With permission refused, the consent order stands.
The High Court judgment is on the judiciary website. See also July’s court fee increases and the rethink on jury trial restrictions.